User talk:AHC300

December 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Legality of bestiality in the United States, you may be blocked from editing. Some1 (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Everything I edited and added is up to date information on legality of bestiality, including Wisconsin felony penalty increase or Maryland changes. https://legiscan.com/MD/bill/HB81/2020 https://legiscan.com/WI/bill/SB139/2019 https://web.archive.org/web/20161228150534/http://www.csom.org/pubs/50%20state%20survey%20adult%20registries.pdf AHC300 (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

You made an edit here stating that bestiality is "Illegal statewide, excluding the counties of Erie, Fulton, Huron, Lucas, Ottawa, Sandusky, Williams and Wood" and "Legal in the counties of Erie, Fulton, Huron, Lucas, Ottawa, Sandusky, Williams and Wood" using this document as a reference, but none of that is supported by the reference at all. Please stop misrepresenting sources and adding WP:OR to this article or any other article for that matter; this is not the first time you've done so and you've done it multiple times. Some1 (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

https://patch.com/ohio/cleveland/court-s-ruling-made-bestiality-legal-8-ohio-counties-one-legislator-wants-fix https://legiscan.com/OH/text/HB350/id/2054887 "Section 4.The amendments to sections 959.15, 959.21, and959.99 of the Revised Code by thisact are intended to re-enactthe amendments to those sections made by Sub. S.B. 331 of the131st General Assembly that were severed by the Sixth DistrictCourt of Appeals of Ohio in Toledo v.Ohio, 2018-Ohio-4534; 2018Ohio App. LEXIS 4854 (6th Dist.) due to the determination thatthose provisionsviolated the one subject rule established underArticle II, Section 15(D) of the Ohio Constitution." AHC300 (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Latitude0116. Thank you. Pudeo (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Defending against sockpuppet investigations

I have been an active and respected member of the wikipedia community for years now. I have voted in every wikipedia poll and active with other users. Everything I post on wikipeida is sourced and verified information. I am not "disruptive", nor am I "misuse of two or more accounts by the one individual". My edits are critical for expanding wikipedia and I have spent countless free hours of my time creating and editing articles. These accusations are completely absurd. AHC300 (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I have extensively studied the history of this and your other accounts, and it is clear beyond any doubt that you have been using this account to evade blocks on a number of other accounts. Contrary to what you seem to imply in your message above, the fact that you have managed to get away with it for several years does not make it somehow all right to continue to evade blocks, nor does the high opinion you have of the value of your own editing. Therefore this account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} to the bottom of the talk page of your original account, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JBW (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AHC300 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

reason=I am NOT Latitude0116. I was accused of being Latitude0116 sock puppet in 2012 unfairly and unjustly and had to create new accounts because you mods accused me of being Latitude0116 without any proof. I have not done anything wrong and you are persecuting a valued wiki contributor for zero reason. What do I HAVE TO DO for you people to let me have an account on wikipedia to edit it?

Decline reason:

You say you aren't a sock puppet but then say you create new accounts to evade a block. If that's what you are going to do, then there is nothing more to be done here. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You cannot remove prior declined requests until the block is removed, per WP:BLANKING. Please decide where you want this mattered handled, here or UTRS, and withdraw the request at the other location. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

UTRS. I do not know how much more I have convince I am not Latitude0116. Latitude0116 even said HIS user talk he is not not me, and you are accusing ME of being him. This is crazy and bordering on Wikipedia:Harassment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Latitude0116#Unblock_request_2 AHC300 (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO? To prove I am not Latitude0116 and for Latitude0116 to prove he is not me? AHC300 (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Added comments to UTRS AHC300 (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)